This blog is a place for me to muse about things that interest me: political, theological, personal. It is a place for the written word. The title "Jackie Speaks" is a reference to God's grace in helping me overcome a severe speech impediment.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

The rite reverend Fanny Bottoms, the public affairs officer for
the National Council of Churches (NCC) has issued a press release acknowledging
that the NCC’s historic ecumenical council on Christian worship has entered a
difficult phase with some delegates threatening to withdraw from the
multi-lateral dialogues. To the surprise of many, an agreement was quickly reached
on a definition of the Eucharist, and the council moved forward to
deliberations on ecclesial architecture. There was little debate over a
carefully worded section intended to allow but not require stained glass but
the negotiations broke down over acceptable seating in Christian worship.

The Anabaptists were uncharacteristically the first into the
fray, offering an amendment requiring that sanctuary pews be of simple design
and neither painful nor cushioned. During a brief recess the Anabaptist section quietly sang a hymn attributed to Menno Simons, “No vanity, nor pain, nor slumber in His
presence, No vanity, nor pain, nor slumber in His presence.”

Perhaps in an effort to make evident their historical and
theological distinctions, a group of Southern Baptist messengers[i]
offered their own set of amendments.First, their motion that every house of worship include a prominent
display of the American flag was ruled out of order since it was not germane to
the main motion concerning seating. Their second concern was that a provision
be made for seatbelts in church seating. They expressed two concerns. First
they were seeking an acceptable tool to help restrain “contemporary service” worshipers
during the more charismatic choruses. Second, they felt the presence of the belts might provide
a greater sense of the believer’s security.

The Presbyterians and other Calvinist were troubled by the
Anabaptist insistence that church seating not be painful. They argued that
efficiency trumped comfort and that appropriately placed pain is to the glory of God. They pointed out that they had considerable interest in this topic as they
make greater use of their seats than most, all-be-it, their services tend to be
more brief than those of the Baptist.

The Pentecostals had little concern for the issue of
comfort. They were more interested in pragmatic issues of ease of egress.
Specifically, they stressed a preference for the ergonomics of seats having a
proper center of gravity, one which makes standing effortless whenever the
Spirit moves. They have prepared a statement on headrests, a feature they say is needed for better viewing of the big screens.

The Charismatics went farther than the Pentecostals, seeking
approval for spring-loaded lift seats that make response to the Spirit
effortless. They also have petitioned for a paragraph approving cup holders large enough for their lattes. Their delegates confided that comfort is less important than the appearance of comfort as the world needs to see God's favor on His people.

The Anglicans were silent on this issue saying only that
there should be tolerance for all alternative seating styles.

Both Methodist delegates were also silent on the floor. It is
rumored however that they formed three committees to draft alternative
proposals. The chair of their delegation would only say that the Book of
Discipline was silent on this matter but that they were unequivocally committed
to unity, charity, and tolerance. Denominational executives have pledged to work toward inclusion of the
topic on the agenda of the next General conference.

The Vatican observer for the Council stated that the
Holy Father was pleased the ecclesial communities were talking about
matters important to the Holy See as seating arrangements are critical to full
communion at the table of the Bishop.

Finally, the Orthodox have already distributed their
minority report which they prepared last year before the ecumenical council was
publically announced. In part it argues that the question of seating is
irrelevant. Metropolitan Bishop Stanz Upright Strait explained “It is
imperative that we follow the traditions of the Apostles and not be misled by these
modern perversions. Seats were introduced in Western worship in the late 4th
century as an appeasement to the Emperor. In all of our icons it is clear they
were standing in the upper room when the Blessed Spirit came and so it is
everywhere the Spirit abides. Only the bishop may sit in the presence of the
holy.”

[i]
Pre-conference negotiations guaranteed the Southern Baptists they would be
referred to as “messengers” and not “delegates” in all official statements.